@ente @webmind @strypey and yes, burnout is a huge problem. But poretty much unsolvable unless "our side" starts having enough resources to manage such campaigns not as emergencies...

If only we had popular organizations with big budgets that let people make it their job to participate in the political process and fight for us.
@ente @webmind @strypey

@webmind @pesco @rysiek @ente@chaos.social @strypey
I bet many people wouldn't mind a government that does completely nothing.
A feature freeze of sorts.
No new law.
Everything keeps working as it was before.

Yeah, I know it wouldn't work long-term. But so often it seems that every time someone proposes a change to the law, someone takes it as an opportunity to inject their shitty article into it.

I actually think there should be a "deterministic 'NO' party" whose program is literally to vote against *any* change to the status quo. A default to choose if every other party seems terrible, a force to to make the others have to be not terrible.
@webmind @rysiek @ente @strypey

@pesco @Wolf480pl @webmind @ente @strypey you're describing the conservative parties. That's where the name comes from.

And they're usually the worst. Blocking marriage equality, gender equality regulations, environmental regulations, etc etc.

Even in #saveyourinternet it's aout *preserving old business models* in the age of Internets. So conservatives are often the ones who are voting for #Art11 #Art13, by and large.

@rysiek @pesco @webmind @ente@chaos.social @strypey

This is not what he's describing.

It's not about preserving the overall status quo, it's about paralyzing the parliment.
Therefore, the proposed party must vote "NO" in all circumstances.

@Wolf480pl @pesco @webmind @ente @strypey yes, but *by definition* this preserves old regulation. Like marriage inequality, like freedom to polute. There is literally no good reason to have a party like that. This will no achieve anything.

What we need are parties that vote sane. Not obstructionists.

@rysiek @pesco @webmind @ente@chaos.social @strypey

It will change the game.

The basic idea behind democracy is that to rule, a party needs support of the society.
Currently there's an anomaly that if the society doesn't support any party, then some party still gets to rule, even though the society doesn't support it.

What I propose is that if the society doesn't support any party, then NOBODY gets to rule.

This will change the incentives for parties, because they'll have to be better than nothing.

@Wolf480pl @pesco @webmind @ente @strypey what will change the incentives is changing the electoral system to Single Transferrable Vote:


Instead of coming up with hare-brained schemes involving obstructionism and blockchain, perhaps we should first do some research into actually viable solutions?..

@rysiek @pesco @webmind @ente@chaos.social @strypey

I wasn't serious with the blockchain part. Sorry if that made you angry.

I know about STV, but it's pretty complicated, It'd be a big change to the electorial system, and would the whole thing harder to understand. OTOH, a "NO" party is simple, and doesn't require changes in the electorial system.

I'm not saying it'd solve all problems, or most of the problems. I'm just saying it's an idea worth investigating.

@Wolf480pl @rysiek @pesco @webmind @ente
> "I know about STV, but it's pretty complicated"

I've voted in STV elections for local govt back home, it really isn't that complicated. People who can't be bothered thinking it through still have the option of treating it like a FPP election, and just putting (1) next to their preferred candidate instead of a tick. You could even have a rule that a tick counts as a (1) for that candidate in case people get confused.

@strypey @rysiek @pesco @webmind @ente@chaos.social

I'm not saying they're hard to use, I'm saying they're hard to reason about.

@Wolf480pl @rysiek @pesco @webmind @ente what do you mean "hard to reason about", and why are they harder to implement than any other voting system?

@strypey @rysiek @pesco @webmind @ente@chaos.social
It's harder to implement a new system than to slightly adjust an existing system, especially that the "NO" party could be implemented without any change to the existing implementation of voting system.

By "hard to reason about" I mean, it is harder to predict how your votes will affect the results, harder to externally verify if the system functions correctly, and harder to predict how it'll behave as a part of a larger system.

@Wolf480pl @rysiek @pesco @webmind @ente I was involved in the attempts to bootstrap a #PirateParty here, and I know some of the people who campaigned successfully to change #NZ from FPP to MMP. I also know co-founders of new political parties, some successful (eg Greens), many not (eg Cannabis, Pirates), some mixed (eg Alliance, Mana). I think you underestimate how hard it is to set up a new political party from scratch, *especially* in a FPP electoral system.


@strypey @rysiek @pesco @ente@chaos.social

Yeah, I'm probably underestimating how hard it is.
I'm looking at it as if it was all software, which it isn't.

Sign in to participate in the conversation

Welcome to your niu world ! We are a cute and loving international community O(≧▽≦)O !